beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.02.08 2017나51546

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 17, 2015, against the total amount of KRW 74,241,937 against the Defendant (the former name: H) on the date of distribution of the auction procedure for the auction of the real estate rent C, which is located in the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court, through through the Changwon District Court, in lieu of D, by subrogation, against the entire amount of KRW 74,241,937, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the instant lawsuit on November 17, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D, F, and G (hereinafter “D, etc.”) to purchase at KRW 2.8 billion including the instant real estate (land 6 parcels, buildings 3 units), and landscaping facilities. Since the obligation to register ownership transfer of part of the real estate for sale was impossible to be fulfilled due to D, etc., D, etc., and D, etc. is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 394,859,78 as damages due to nonperformance of performance, restitution of unjust enrichment, and return of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages against D et al. with the seller, including D et al., the Changwon District Court rendered a lawsuit for damages at KRW 2015,147, 2017 or 20138, which partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim from the appellate court [C, etc., Busan High Court 2017 or 20138], and both appeals were dismissed, and both appeals were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 6, 10, 17 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the existence of the preserved claim

A. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the creditor's right to the debtor is not acknowledged, the creditor is not entitled to exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor by himself/herself as the plaintiff.